Kayanis gamble: Pakistan pulls back troops from Indian border

[Kikki]

well we can't discuss further you apparently feel the situation is not similar! because it clearly is all 3 places have people who occupy their land! hence you can't discuss anything without looking at similar examples. until and unless you start from the beginning of the problem.

Fine lets stop this here. But from Indian perspective kashmir is not occupied. There is a small piece of paper signed by its former owner that says so.
Also if you are questioning India on kashmir, please question your Chinese friends on tibet also.
However its a pity that you cannot put aside something totally irrelevant and not answer the question without asking another question. This is the last post from me. thanks

 

[Tshering22]

Fine lets stop this here. But from Indian perspective kashmir is not occupied. There is a small piece of paper signed by its former owner that says so.

Also if you are questioning India on kashmir, please question your Chinese friends on tibet also.
However its a pity that you cannot put aside something totally irrelevant and not answer the question without asking another question. This is the last post from me. thanks

Even then it is not justified. Kashmir's indigenous population was either forced on sword or exiled and exterminated. Tibet on the other hand was a distinct region in terms of a preceptor-student relationship. Don't equate the two on the same pedestal.

And don't ask about J&K because then they'd go all over India as a democracy and the validity of a king has no relevance and this and that. Anything that justifies their action is fine.

 

[ice_man]

Fine lets stop this here. But from Indian perspective kashmir is not occupied. There is a small piece of paper signed by its former owner that says so.
Also if you are questioning India on kashmir, please question your Chinese friends on tibet also.
However its a pity that you cannot put aside something totally irrelevant and not answer the question without asking another question. This is the last post from me. thanks

yup well the nawab of junagadh wanted to join pakistan he also "had papers" but india disregarded it sent in troops and held a plebiscite! but kashmir the rule was different. and in hyderbabad deccan too the rule was changed to fit india's ambitions!

& i did answer your question please read properly "invading forces" "oppressed people" have a right to stand up and fight and the world should symapthise with them (for example libya is a modern example or south sudan is) however the "world" ignores kashmir,chechniya & afghanistan and call them terrorists! even though all 3 places were annexed from the beginning & never supported there oppressors!